Eklund Rumor: Rangers to trade for Shattenkirk?

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I don't want Shattenkirk, unless he signs an extension immediately after we trade for him, and that extension is 6 years 36M. It could be less than 6 years 36M, but I doubt he'd take any less than that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Uh, that is why I carefully said "the list appears short" and also why I cited that scenario as a risk, because I am going off what I have read. I don't know for sure and neither do you.

The only team we know he wouldn't extend with is Edmonton. Everything else is baseless speculation.

 

[MarkMessyay11]

I just don't see this one shaking out. Blues want to shed salary, Rangers don't have an abundance of prospects/picks to offer. I guess Kreider could go back, but that doesn't help either team solve their own respective issues. If Shattenkirk is serious about really wanting to play for the Rangers, then they're better off waiting another year and signing him next summer without having to give up any assets.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't want Shattenkirk, unless he signs an extension immediately after we trade for him, and that extension is 6 for 6.

He reportedly asked for Petro money, which is 6.5 per year, so getting him at 6 would be a reasonable possibility.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

The only team we know he wouldn't extend with is Edmonton. Everything else is baseless speculation.

Its funny cause if there is 1 team that Shattenkirk would help an extreme amount and quite possibly be the final piece of the puzzle, is Edmonton

 

[bleedblue1223]

I just don't see this one shaking out. Blues want to shed salary, Rangers don't have an abundance of prospects/picks to offer. I guess Kreider could go back, but that doesn't help either team solve their own respective issues. If Shattenkirk is serious about really wanting to play for the Rangers, then they're better off waiting another year and signing him next summer without having to give up any assets.

Our issue isn't cutting cap, it's reallocating Shatty's cap to a forward, while also staying cap compliant.

 

[Breakers]

What is Eklund's success rate?

2%..... 1.5% in breaking trades.

 

[Whitsmith803]

Some how each of our 3 parts are worth more than their counterpart. Why would the Blues do this?

Steen is the most valuable or Shattenkirk with an extension. Both are worth more than Nash and Kreider. 1st > 3rd.

Steen for Kreider is worth the risk to the Blues
Shattenkirk is replaceable by Colt55 and get RW Nash
Throw the 1st round pick because Steen has one year on his contract left

 

[bluetuned]

Steen for Kreider is worth the risk to the Blues
Shattenkirk is replaceable by Colt55 and get RW Nash
Throw the 1st round pick because Steen has one year on his contract left

If you want this to happen you remove the first and you retain salary on Nash, then maybe there is a conversation.

The Blues can't take back more than they give up in salary, and Nash's salary is seen as a substantial negative at that given the year he just had.

 

[gorangers0525]

What is Eklund's success rate?

2%..... 1.5% in breaking trades.

I'm convinced that if Eklund announced a trade correctly AFTER the team's themselves made it official, the trade would be rescinded.




Shattenkirk would probably be the Ranger's best defenseman, but AV would still play him on the third pair because he doesn't seem to like defenseman that can pass and skate.

 

[goonybird]

Kreider and Buchnevich for Shattenkirk plz

 

[TGWL]

He reportedly asked for Petro money, which is 6.5 per year, so getting him at 6 would be a reasonable possibility.

Maybe. He'd lose close to 400k signing for that in NY over Missouri. I think he'd want like 6.5 from us.

 

[thedustman]

I'm convinced that if Eklund announced a trade correctly AFTER the team's themselves made it official, the trade would be rescinded.




Shattenkirk would probably be the Ranger's best defenseman, but AV would still play him on the third pair because he doesn't seem to like defenseman that can pass and skate.

I'm a big fan of Eklund. It seems more to me like he just speculates about some ideas he has heard, rather than trying to break a trade announcement before anyone else. I appreciate what he does.

On the Shattenkirk front, he has definitely elevated the discussion, and I would love to see Zibanejad coming back in a trade for Shatty.

 

[RangerGuru]

Kreider and Buchnevich for Shattenkirk plz

Ha no thanks

No point in dealing premium assets for him. If we get him great next summer great, if not, no worries

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

He reportedly asked for Petro money, which is 6.5 per year, so getting him at 6 would be a reasonable possibility.

A lot of people said the Yandle contract would set the market for Shattenkirk. Yandle got 7 years 6.35 per.

If you are right that Shattenkirk would take 6 years 6 per, I think a trade could be worked out.

We have to operate under a few assumptions though.

1. You guys aren't keeping him beyond this season.
2. His preference will be to play for us if he goes to free agency.

I understand that players with multiple years on a contract go for more than they would if they had one season left, so there should be some compensation for a Shattenkirk trade, I just don't think a smart GM would give up major pieces for a player we will likely sign in one year, if he has reasonable demands.

I'd be willing to part with Rick Nash, and we could eat half of his contract. Nash has two years left on his contract at 7.8M. If we eat half, thats 3.9M. Shattenkirk for Nash at 50% is fair.

I would suspect you guys want young pieces for Shattenkirk, but you guys are contending now, and we can't really trade young pieces now with the direction of our team. I think you guys would actually be doing well to get Nash at 3.9 for Shattenkirk.

 

[bleedblue1223]

A lot of people said the Yandle contract would set the market for Shattenkirk. Yandle got 7 years 6.35 per.

If you are right that Shattenkirk would take 6 years 6 per, I think a trade could be worked out.

We have to operate under a few assumptions though.

1. You guys aren't keeping him beyond this season, whether he gets traded or not.
2. His preference will be to play for us if he goes to UFA.

I understand that players with multiple years on a contract go for more than they would if they had one season left, so there should be some compensation for a Shattenkirk trade, I just don't think a smart GM would give up major pieces for a player we will likely sign in one year, if he has reasonable demands.

I'd be willing to part with Rick Nash, and we could eat half of his contract. Nash has two years left on his contract at 7.8M. If we eat half, thats 3.9M. Shattenkirk for Nash at 50% is fair.

I would suspect you guys want young pieces for Shattenkirk, but you guys are contending now, and we can't really trade young pieces now with the direction of our team. I think you guys would actually be doing well to get Nash at 3.9 for Shattenkirk.

Those assumptions are not facts. Army could still decide to pay him and try and make a move later or keep trying to win with a stacked right side on defense.

You also can't assume that you will be #1 FA destination. Look how that turned out for Toronto.

It's been reported that we don't have interest in Nash. Nash makes no sense for everything that's been reported from Army and the Blues. We are looking to build with our younger core, that means adding picks/prospects or young players at 26 or younger.

 

[Ezekial]

**** Ek said it?

Call the newspapers, we got a hot one.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Those assumptions are not facts. Army could still decide to pay him and try and make a move later or keep trying to win with a stacked right side on defense.

You also can't assume that you will be #1 FA destination. Look how that turned out for Toronto.

It's been reported that we don't have interest in Nash. Nash makes no sense for everything that's been reported from Army and the Blues. We are looking to build with our younger core, that means adding picks/prospects or young players at 26 or younger.

Okay, so then there won't be a deal between our two teams for Shattenkirk.

We'd be stupid to give up futures for Shattenkirk.

 

[Gardner McKay]

It's not, and it's not on par with other top rentals, even at the trade deadline.

The negatives with Shattenkirk are the same with Yandle.

We paid 1st + Duclair for 1.5 years of Yandle with 50% retained. Considering we won't be asking for STL to retain, I can't see the price being near what we paid for Yandle.

I could very easily be wrong but, just my opinion.

 

[bleedblue1223]

We paid 1st + Duclair for 1.5 years of Yandle with 50% retained. Considering we won't be asking for STL to retain, I can't see the price being near what we paid for Yandle.

I could very easily be wrong but, just my opinion.

Retention is never equal. Part of the reason why Arizona wanted to retain was to keep cap themselves. I've never viewed retention as holding much value, especially in rentals. The value is just to make the cap work in most cases.

It was also 1.25 seasons+1 extra playoff run. 1.25 seasons+2 playoffs vs 1 season+1 playoff. The price was 1st+2nd+Duclair+Moore(roster replacement). You also got Summers and a 4th.

Lucic who was traded in the same situation went for 1st+decent/solid NHL ready prospect+young roster player (equivalent to a 1st).

You could also use the Burns to San Jose deal, Burns+2nd for Setoguchi+Coyle+1st.

There are lot of comps for similar level of players being traded with 1 year left on the deal.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

We paid 1st + Duclair for 1.5 years of Yandle with 50% retained. Considering we won't be asking for STL to retain, I can't see the price being near what we paid for Yandle.

I could very easily be wrong but, just my opinion.

There was also a second involved, Summers, Moore and a 4th.

I think Summers+4th offsets John Moore. The second offsets them having for retain.

The trade for 1.5 years of Yandle was Duclair+1st.

Even if Yandle and Shattenkirk have the same value, 1.5 years vs. 1 year, so they should expect less than what Yandle got Arizona. Take out the 1st.

Top prospect for Shattenkirk is fair, maybe a young NHL player with upside is about that equivalent, so I do think Hayes for Shattenkirk is fair, but we shouldn't trade Hayes just to get Shattenkirk a season earlier. I think that would be a bad trade for us to make, given where the team is at, even though its probably fair.

I don't know why St. Louis fans expect to get much back for Shattenkirk. No one wants to give up a lot for one year rentals.

 

[Wheatking]

Eklund is still a thing?

 

[bleedblue1223]

There was also a second involved, Summers, Moore and a 4th.

I think Summers+4th offsets John Moore. The second offsets them having for retain.

The trade for 1.5 years of Yandle was Duclair+1st.

Even if Yandle and Shattenkirk have the same value, 1.5 years vs. 1 year, so they should expect less than what Yandle got Arizona. Take out the 1st.

Top prospect for Shattenkirk is fair, maybe a young NHL player with upside is about that equivalent, so I do think Hayes for Shattenkirk is fair, but we shouldn't trade Hayes just to get Shattenkirk a season earlier. I think that would be a bad trade for us to make, given where the team is at, even though its probably fair.

I don't know why St. Louis fans expect to get much back for Shattenkirk. No one wants to give up a lot for one year rentals.

You guys and your rationalizations. Just look at other similar deals that I just posted. Look at big trade deadline moves where teams get them for 20 games + playoffs. The cost is more than you guys think it is.

 

[Drij]

lol St. Louis is stupid and would probably ask for Rick Nash. lol

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

its shocking to me that people think they can acquire Shattenkirk for pretty much nothing. This is turning into a bizzare thread